More vulnerable people who need essential items are not able to attain them

The argument

During March of 2020, as lockdowns were being established across America and the rest of the world, a huge social media frenzy also began. People started posting pictures of the other pandemonium that had transpired in grocery stores around the globe. Images of people carrying 300 roles of toilet paper, and aisles being swept clean of frozen foods or canned beans went viral. People naturally started to question the ethics of society's actions. While some are able to secure all the items they need, others are left destitute, and, oftentimes, people who are more vulnerable are not able to obtain necessary products. By stockpiling more than one needs, they are predisposing other people, more vulnerable people, to scarcity. People who are living in poverty or elderly people are among the most hard-hit by other people’s stockpiling habits. In Bedford, a certain foodbank reported on this problem. They noted how a lot of foods that are generally stored are canned items such as pasta or beans. With people stockpiling such products, it is getting harder for food banks to purchase huge quantities of them. Also with the unemployment levels increasing, more people are relying on places like food banks and are unable to get enough food. Furthermore, as supplies start to dwindle, companies also start increasing the price of items. The scarcity creates more demand and this allows companies to astronomically increase prices. This has a huge effect on the elderly population who are generally living off of very restricted budgets. Pictures were circulated on social media of elderly people not being able to secure essential items. All of these heartbreaking scenarios could have simply been avoided if people did not buy more than what they needed. A little rationality could have gone a long way and prevented many vulnerable people from such horrors.

Premises

Counter-arguments

More vulnerable populations are, without a doubt, having problems attaining items. However, this is not caused by other people stockpiling but it is a result of the hard-hit economic times. Most people who cannot secure things are generally living in poverty and they do not have a lot of savings. The beginning of the lockdown period led to many companies eliminating jobs and minimum wage workers were highly impacted. In America alone, 20.6 million people lost their jobs. As supermarkets began to gouge their prices, it became increasingly hard for vulnerable people to obtain items. This problem could have been slightly alleviated if the stockpiling frenzy had not occurred; but it would not have eliminated it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise moves from images that circulated to a claim about what generally happened, and viral photographs select for the extreme. The food bank's difficulty is real and follows from demand rising sharply, which the counter attributes largely to job losses rather than to hoarding — a distinction the premise never attempts. [Rejecting P2] Retailers in these markets are constrained in what they can charge and many imposed purchase limits, so the pricing mechanism is asserted rather than shown, and shortages of particular goods in early 2020 were also attributed to consumption shifting suddenly into households. The ethical conclusion needs more than the harm as well: many shoppers each buying somewhat more than usual can empty a shelf without anyone doing what the argument condemns.